This article and the ones that follow are
from the web site Labor Tuesday for October 8. They have been edited for
Labor Standard.

In October 1960, the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union (ILWU) signed a watershed contract that radically altered work
practices on the West Coast docks. Over time, more and more mechanization and
containerization took place; and the union grew smaller (shrinking from about
100,000 members then to 10,500 today). Though individual dockworkers saw
improved wages and benefits, at least part of the improvement was paid by lost
jobs, not profits.

In 1971, a federal pay board estimated that
dockworkers’ productivity increased by almost 140% in the previous ten years,
as contrasted with a national increase of 30%. During that time the bosses paid
the dockworkers $62 million for their increased productivity, but pocketed $900
million in saved labor costs.

Once again, the shipping and terminal bosses are
looking for increased productivity; if the bosses are even partially
successful, the ILWU membership base on the West Coast docks will continue to
shrivel. In the current negotiations the ILWU bargainers have already agreed to
give up an estimated 600 clerks’ jobs; as a quid pro quo the ILWU wants the
bosses to recognize the union’s jurisdiction over new jobs, created as more
mechanization and computerization is introduced.

Should the union fail to win its jurisdictional
claim over the prospective computer-related jobs, its traditional power to
affect productivity will surely fade, as employers introduce more technology at
the docks and conduct more technological operations away from the docks. An
expert on port operations told the New York Times (Oct. 2), “This dispute
is not just about money, it’s also about control.” With only 10,500 dock jobs
left, the ranks have to wonder how many more jobs the union can lose without
losing its control over the chokepoints of the West Coast shipping business.

In 1971, the ILWU ranks battled both the dock
bosses and the government, which forced them back to work for 80 days. As this
is being written, it seems far more likely than not that the government will
intervene and end the current lockout, a step the ILWU opposes. Does that mean
that the union would strike, if, at the end of 80 days, there is no settlement?

Yes, but the ILWU surely remembers that shortly
before the union agreed to a new contract in 1971, the Nixon administration and
the Democratic Party-controlled Congress decided to impose compulsory
arbitration and bar a strike for 18 months. A last-minute settlement allowed
the union to escape compulsory arbitration, but the ranks were robbed when the
government Pay Board voted 8-5 to cut wage and benefit increases from 25.9% to
14.9 %. In protest, four labor members of the Pay Board resigned; the Teamsters
president, Frank Fitzimmons, stayed on. Before the Pay Board’s stinging
decision, Harry Bridges, the ILWU president, vowed to fight if even one cent
was cut from the settlement; but then he thought better of it and the dispute
ended.

If the 1971 events and their resolution are any
guide, the ranks need additional power to maintain, let alone improve, their
present relationship of forces against the bosses and their political allies.
At least some of the ranks believe that they have an ace in the hole; they’re
counting on the solidarity of dockworkers around the world. Surely, the refusal
of those dockworkers to unload ships from the U.S. would be a powerful weapon.
But a widespread dockers’ boycott of U.S.-loaded ships would be unprecedented.

Bargaining Update

Press reports state that contract talks broke
down again Sunday night, Oct. 6. Within hours the government said it was
appointing a board of inquiry to assess the economic impact of the lockout, a
first step toward the imposition of the Taft-Hartley Act. Though the T-H Act
has been on the books for over five decades, it has never been used to end an
employer-led lockout. An earlier roadblock to a settlement arose October 1,
when the PMA negotiating committee arrived with armed bodyguards at a meeting
arranged by a federal mediator. “They have been deployed in a very discreet
manner,” said a PMA spokesperson, “and we would hope the union would understand
these circumstances.”

The union negotiators understood very well the
meaning of armed personnel, having endured weeks of threats from the Bush
administration to send the military to occupy and operate the docks. ILWU
President James Spinosa and the union delegation stormed out, saying that the
union would no longer meet with the current PMA negotiators and insisted that
the PMA executive board itself sit down for future talks. “PMA’s lockout is
holding a gun to the head of the American economy and now they move to aim real
guns at us,” Spinosa said. “We will not be intimidated by these kinds of
tactics, and we will never reach an agreement as long as the PMA acts as if it
can force a settlement at gun point rather than negotiate.”

Nevertheless, the day after the gun-toting
incident, the union agreed to federal mediation with the current PMA
negotiators. As stated above, those talks broke down after four days.

What will happen when the Bush administration
ends the lockout? Will the dockers’ productivity and the bosses’ profits
quickly return to pre-lockout levels? Or will the dockers continue to work in
accordance with all safety laws and regulations, which, says PMA, led to the
lockout. In any event, the bosses’ intransigence will be dramatically tested,
if not this week, then in less than three months.

THE MARITIME WORKER MONITOR

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a rank-and-file
newsletter put out by dockworkers. Some editing and bracketed text has been
added by LABOR TUESDAY.]

Volume I, Issue II

October 1, 2002

LOCKOUT

Joe Miniace [CEO of the employers’ group, the
Pacific Maritime Association] and his boys at the PMA have been long on their
rhetoric about locking out the ILWU if there is a slowdown. Miniace feels since
we had been operating equipment beyond the established safety limits, we are
obligated to continue to do so, even though it may be in violation of federal,
state, and jointly agreed-to waterfront safety rules.

Since we have rightfully decided to follow those
rules, and others, we are now being accused of a slowdown. Just one look at the
accident and fatalities statistics will tell who the bad guys are. Miniace gets
our hypocrite of the year award for signing his name to the safety rules we are
obligated to work by and then locking out the union for following them.

The rules have been overlooked for so long to
benefit productivity that we, as union members, are being penalized for
following the federal, state, and ILWU/PMA safety regulations. The negotiating
committee and the ranks are delivering a strong message to the employers, Lock
us out if you want, but we will not be forced to rely on the PMA’s falsely
exaggerated productivity figures based on working conditions that break numerous
sections of jointly agreed-to safety rules. The fight for safety is an honest
one; nine fatalities and numerous serious accidents in one contract term is not
a gimmick. The ILWU has always stood steadfast for those principled positions
that protect workers. Even if it comes with the threat of a lockout or lawsuit.

Safety vs. Productivity

The ILWU is being stonewalled on the safety vs.
productivity problem with the employers in
the current bargaining sessions. The ILWU is justifiably addressing the issue.
We know the employers want to keep productivity at the high level which they
have been accustomed to, but they oppose hiring additional workers to keep the
hook moving. They rely instead, on the hard-working longshoremen moving faster
to keep up.

It is the employer that makes the decision as to
how efficient or inefficient they want to make the operation. There are many
cases where the employers hire jobs in a manner that would make the operation
very inefficient had they not the luxury of the “conscientious” worker to speed
up and bail them out. Many longshore workers overlook the safety rules to make
the operation productive and the shippers happy. Whether you realize it or not,
we are now paying dearly for overlooking safety rules. Serious injuries need to
be curtailed and fatalities eliminated. As a result of the alarming amount of
recent fatalities the ILWU has taken the position to work in compliance with
the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code, and all federal and state safety
regulations.

Doubling Back, Who Benefits?

[“Doubling back” refers to the practice of
working a second shift before a minimum number of hours between shifts, as
specified by a union contact, have elapsed.] There are too many areas where the
Union has given up conditions in which the benefit clearly favors the
employers. Take the issue of doubling back. Laying personal monetary issues
aside, it’s hard to make an argument that the practice has any useful benefit
to us as a union. It jeopardizes safety for the workers doubling, and for those
required to work around them.

The employers are able to have a smaller
workforce, which saves them money on pension and the health and welfare
contributions. They pay less money in training programs, it eliminates a well
paying job, and weakens the union by having less members. This in turn relates
to less financial support at the local and International levels. Most
importantly doubling back desecrates a landmark victory the ILWU won as a
result of the 1934 strike, and is contained in Section 2 of the Arbitration
Award handed down by the National Longshoremen’s Board in October 1934. That is
the Six Hour Day.

Makes you wonder if Nick Bordoise, Howard
Sperry, Dick Parker, John Knudson, Shelvy Daffron, and Olaf Holland, all of
whom gave their lives in the big strike for the Six Hour Day and the Hiring
Hall would take a double out, skip their coffee break, and work through lunch.
Now we’re not saying we can just turn back the clock after all this time. But since
everyone has stopped to take a breather and quit doubling back, the docks will
be a lot safer. Maybe we can get back to the basics of providing good paying
jobs with benefits to more families. Providing jobs and spreading the wealth is
one of the founding principles of our union.

Mini-opoly Technology

The technology issues on deck in the bargaining
sessions are critical to the health, security, and future of the ILWU. So far
the negotiating committee has been “on the beam.” The Union now as in the past
will not be bought off by Mini-opoly [this seems to refer to PMA negotiator
Miniace], the West Coast Waterfront Coalition (w.c.w.c.), or any group of
multinational corporations toting around their big buyout bags of money.

The ILWU as always is paving the way for
elevating the living standards of many working families by securing the
jurisdiction necessary to provide good jobs and benefits to future dockworkers.

In Mini-opoly’s opening remarks to the unions
negotiating committee on May 13, 2002, he stated: “Let me be very clear; the
PMA recognizes the role and historic jurisdiction of the ILWU members and will
respect both. Technology and work process change will eliminate certain work
and create new work. The ILWU members, our registered workforce of longshoremen
and clerks, will be guaranteed work opportunity under this contract and, more
importantly, the opportunity to move into new positions, with methods of work
and a secure future.”

Mini-opoly may be in the beginning stages of
Alzheimer’s disease or he may be a lying union buster as the negotiations have
stalled over technology issues for the following reason. On September 30, ILWU
President Spinosa was quoted as saying: “We cannot budge on outsourcing of our
work. We cannot ever agree with an employer that’s willing to take our work and
give it to others. What they’re looking for is a buyout with this union and our
work force, and allow for others to do our work. Totally unacceptable. we will
not move in that direction.”

The ILWU, from the rank and file on up, will not
agree to outsource our work. Mini-opoly’s pistol packing goons wont change
that.

Government Intervention

How can we most effectively defend against the
threat by President Bush to intervene in longshore negotiations with federal
troops on the docks or by invoking the anti-labor Taft Hartley act? Currently,
we have statements of support from Senators Daschle, Kennedy, and [politicians]
from the West Coast calling on President Bush to stay out of our negotiations.

These Democratic Senators, often referred to as
“Friends of Labor,” were signatories to the infamous Patriot Act passed last
October through the Senate with a 98-1 vote. The implementation of the Patriot
Act paves the way for a police state of the worst sort, a government minus the
“Bill of Rights” ruling the country in the sole interests of big business.

It creates a new crime of domestic terrorism:
Makes it a federal offense to engage in acts dangerous to human life that
“appear” to be intended to intimidate or coerce civil populations includes
harboring or providing material support to whomever the Government deems to be
terrorists or terrorist organizations or conspiring to do the same. Allows the
Government to levy heavy penalties for civil disobedience and militant mass
political protests, including seizure of all assets involved in planning,
conducting, or supporting an act of terrorism. This could include organizing,
supporting, and defending a picket line.

We think it is a big mistake for the ILWU to
rely on the same politicians that voted for the Patriot Act to defend us
against the threat of government troops on the docks The threat of federal
troop intervention on the docks is not only an attack on the entire labor
movement but also on the civil rights of every citizen in this country. The
threat this crisis represents to the working class has the potential to bring
thousands of people to protest actions. The ILWU needs to begin a program of
mass mobilizations of unions, their members, and concerned citizens to protest
at federal buildings in the major ports. The ILWU as well as the AFL-CIO have
the immense resources to make this happen.

Memorial

This issue of the Monitor is dedicated to the
nine people who lost their lives on the docks of the West Coast during the
current contract period beginning July 1, 1999.

Rick Muller (Long Beach, Aug. ‘99)

Frank Hernandez(passenger in over-the-road
truck, Aug. ‘99)

Mike Melgoza (Long Beach, Sep. ‘99)

Ron Edwards (Portland, Sep. ‘99)

John Prohoroff (Long Beach March, ‘02)

Mario Gonzalez (ILWU guard, [Local] #26, March ‘02)

Dick Peters (Eureka, June ‘02)

Richie Lopes Jr.(Hueneme, July ‘02)

Rudy Acosta (ILWU guard, #26, Sep. ‘02)

Contributors to the Monitor

Jack Mulcahy Local 8

Mark Downs Local 19

Jack Heyman Local 10

LABOR BRIEFS—THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT

LIONS INTO
ASSES

“The Eightieth Congress capitalized on
Truman’s anti-labor statements and actions of the previous year, his use of the
injunction against [John L.] Lewis, and his threat of military induction
against the railroad workers. It cannot be gainsaid that Truman also helped
pave the way for the Taft-Hartley Act.”

AFL leaders broke their pact in 1947 with the
Coalminers Union “to boycott the Taft-Hartley Law by refusal to comply with the
reporting and affidavit provisions.” Lewis quit the AFL, but first he faced
them and memorably said, in part, “I represent an organization whose members
believe they pay their officers to fight for them ...And is it true that the
leaders of our movement are to be the first of our mighty hosts of 8,000,000
members to put their tails between their legs and run like cravens before the
threat of the Taft-Hartley bill? I am reminded of the Biblical parable, ‘Lions
led by asses.’”

—Quotations from Saul
Alinsky’s book John L. Lewis

A HISTORICAL IRONY WITHOUT LAUGHS

Labor historians said that there will be a
special irony if the weapon that President Bush ultimately uses against the
union is Taft-Hartley. It was the 55-year-old law's requirement that labor
leaders—but no other economic actors—sign anti-Communist pledges at the start
of the Cold War that marked the ILWU as the most radical of American unions.
Then-union leader Harry Bridges refused to sign, causing a politically jittery
Congress of Industrial Organizations to drive the longshoremen out of the labor
federation.

—Los Angeles Times

TEAMSTERS STAND WITH DOCKERS

“The Teamsters Union stands shoulder to shoulder
with our brothers and sisters in the West Coast Longshore Union (ILWU) who have
been locked out. The employer lockout is the labor relations equivalent of an
act of war and we stand ready to assist in any way possible. We strongly oppose
any decision to impose Taft Hartley in this situation or the use of federal
troops to replace the locked-out workers. Such actions would be viewed as open
union-busting by the Teamsters and all of labor. I call on all Teamsters to
lend your solidarity and support to our brothers and sisters in the West Coast
ports. The Longshore workers fight is our fight. Our two unions have a strong
history of cooperation and now is the time to put it to use to ensure that a
collective bargaining agreement that meets the needs of the longshoremen and
their families is reached.